Ted B. Jones v. IMPD, et al.

District Court, N.D. Indiana·Decided December 8, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-00653·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TED B. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:25-CV-653-HAB-ALT

IMPD, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ted Jones, proceeding pro se, sued Defendants in the Southern District of Indiana asserting a number of claims. (ECF No. 1). Recognizing that Plaintiff resides in Fort Wayne and the majority of the acts or omissions underlying this suit occurred within the Northern District’s bounds, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. (ECF No. 6, 8). Yet Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The Court now orders him to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed without prepayment of the fee within 30 days of this Order. The Court also warns Plaintiff that if he fails to do so, his case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The failure to pay a filing fee normally leads to dismissal for want of prosecution . . . .”). For these reasons, the Court: (1) AFFORDS Plaintiff thirty (30 days from the date of this Order to pay the filing fee or move to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee; (2) DIRECTS the Clerk to send Plaintiff an AO239 form for the Northern District of Indiana; and (3) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that if he fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss the case without further notice. SO ORDERED this 8th day of December 2025.

s/ Holly A. Brady CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ted B. Jones v. IMPD, et al., (N.D. Ind. 2025).

Ted B. Jones v. IMPD, et al. (Ted B. Jones v. IMPD, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earl D. Sperow v. Francis Melvin
153 F.3d 780 (Seventh Circuit, 1998)